Sound Forge CDA Poll

Rednroll wrote on 12/2/2002, 12:22 AM
Just wanted to create a simple poll to see how other users feel about the new CDA5. My question is this: How many users would have prefered that the new release of CDA5 features, would have been better if those features where developed within Sound Forge instead of a seperate app like CDA5? Being more specific, would it be more useful to have features within Sound Forge that allowed you to overlap, mix and edit multiple events with a "second audo layer" option and have volume evelopes within sound forge. Then to be able to place CD track ID's within those edits and burn a disk-at-once redbook CD? Please respond with some "yae's" or "Nae's"



Geoff_Wood wrote on 12/2/2002, 1:51 AM
If CDA5 didn't have the plugins per track, yeah - in SF

But as it does, it changes CDA into a full stand-alone mastering app. So Neah.

RikTheRik wrote on 12/2/2002, 5:47 AM
I see Sound Forge as an audio editing application and it does it job very well.
I don't want this application to have multiple events and second audio layers. That would make a bloated audio editing app.

I use CDA as a mastering application and I miss in CDA few mastering features.

So my answer is Nae
captn_spalding wrote on 12/2/2002, 10:20 AM
By the nature of the work I do and the way I do it I come down as a "neah"; I prefer the features of CDA5 be in a seperate product. That said, I certainly understand Red's and other's desire to have one product. This difference is probably related to Gregoric learning styles "abstract sequential", "abstract random", "concrete sequential" and "concrete random". My partner is strongly CR and I am stongly AS. We long ago stopped trying to understand how the other worked. We both get there, just differrent paths. She likes to work on all aspects of a project simultaneously. I prefer a set sequence. In my mind I see two very disctinct steps - With SF I am working with the music. With CDA5 I am working with the CD. I am fortunate that the folks at Sonic saw it the same way (or more likely saw it as a way to sell me two things rather than one). So Red, on a theoretcal level I can see where you are coming from. It just doesn't work for me
Fats wrote on 12/2/2002, 11:18 AM
Marx Brothers Brothers Unite!

I agree. Keep 'em separate. Some of us like the simplicity of Forge and wouldn't want to see it compromised just to integrate two apps and save a hundred bucks or so. As I see it, it's all about picking the right tool for the job. If your audio is not destined for CD, why would you want all the disc burning bells getting in the way of your workspace?

If you work constantly with digital audio and you fail to see the distinction between the two products, I'd suggest you're not working at peak efficiency. But maybe I'm just an a$$h*le.

Cold wrote on 12/2/2002, 4:31 PM
neah... I prefer working in seperate apps as well... personally would prefer the SF people to continue with the natural progression of each app. Sound Forge into a 5.1 editor, CDA into a fuller authoring program (DVDs are pretty cheap now and only getting cheaper I've had a DVD burner for 6 months and I'm poor folk!), Vegas incorporating surround mixing, external control, perhaps basic midi...,Acid...well I don't use it so I guess I don't really care... Sorry Red, I seem to be going off topic.
kryten wrote on 12/2/2002, 11:25 PM
Nay. I agree with everyone else so far. Keep 'em separate for they are targeted at a specific usage. The problem I see with a possible all-in-one app is if something needs to be fixed, it might break something else. However, I don't see Sound Forge adding 5.1's a *stereo* (i.e. 2-track) editing program, and this is something that is going to be added to Acid, since it's a multi-track app. I know that 5.1 is a matrixed system (and could possibly be integrated into SF), but it would add bloat to SF, and I believe belongs in a multi-track program.
MyST wrote on 12/3/2002, 9:19 AM
Well, since you didn't specify if you wanted feedback from Pros only, I'll step in here to give a hobbyists's opinion.
I say keep them separate. I love the simplicity of having the different apps for different purposes. If I want to work with loops, I'll clic on my Acid Pro shortcut on my desktop. If I want to edit a song, I'll clic on my SF 6.0 icon, same for VV3 and videos.
This is the best way for me to work as a hobbyist. I can't comment on which option is more efficient for the Pros.
Also, these apps are more accessible to me when sold independently. The first purchase is the most expensive one, then I have introductary pricing since I'm registered. To come up with the money for an all-in-one app, that would obviously be more expensive, would be much harder. Kind of like, I can't afford one payment of 800$, but I can afford 3 payments of 300$ spread out over a period between releases.
So, that's my opinion, do with it what you want.

themuzic wrote on 12/3/2002, 10:14 AM
Keep them seperate. For me, CDA5 is the best investment I've made in quite some time as far as software goes.

stusy wrote on 12/5/2002, 11:00 AM
Separate, but powerful software music utilities and prognosticators, yet unified in platform and approach from the gitgo leadership...
Bill_Wood wrote on 12/5/2002, 12:01 PM
I am a CD Architect user from way back. The last working version of CDA 4.0 could be involked from SF 4.5, but was really a stand-alone program. I liked it that way. I was many of the old users who begged Sonic Foundry to keep CDA alive. So I was very pleased to see the CDA 5.0 brought out.

While I just downloaded it yesterday, it looks very good so far. Lots of capability that was not in the older versions. An absolute must for people who need to author small runs of Red Book spec audio CD's. That was always CDA's forte in the past. Now we have that capability back!

Geoff_Wood wrote on 12/5/2002, 4:47 PM
Bill, why "author small runs" - CDA creates a production master that can be used equally to make no, one, or 100,000 copies (or pick any other nuymber you like)!

I have assisted in four full-scale commercial 'pressed' releases (transcriptions / compilations)in CDA(4), as well as CD-Rs for my 'actual recording' clients.

Estuardo wrote on 12/6/2002, 8:27 AM
Personally I want CDA to be separate from Sound Forge for basically the same reasons cited above.

If it was combined, the end result would be (should be?) a more expensive product. Suppose someone already has a sound editing application, or perhaps wants something other than Sound Forge.

I want my programs to be specific to the task, and to do that task well. A lot of programs that try to include everything in one package, to be the "be all" for everyone, often tend to take shortcuts to obtain that objective. I would rather the programmers concentrate on the one objective (create professional audio CD-R's) and make it as good as they can.

Bill_Wood wrote on 12/6/2002, 9:49 AM

I know CDA can produce full-scale production masters. It is just that people who produce 1,000's of copies can afford to use a big production house. We short-run people need a more cost-effective way to produce quality audio CD's. The old CDA offered that solution. The new version appears to be good as well.

I have switched over to SF 6.0d and CSA 5.0 and am getting up to speed rapidly. The only problem I have run into so far is a SF program halt when I try to search for anything in the On-Line Help window. Things look good for a program that was released less than a month ago!

Geoff_Wood wrote on 12/6/2002, 5:19 PM
Bill, you under-estimate yourself. You may be able to do just as well as a 'big production houses' - even better. Equally, you could both be using CDA.

People who get thousands of CDs factory-replicated pay me to author them and supply a production master CD ! I also do smaller run CD-Rs myself (7 x PlexWriters, with Padus DiskJuggler for production).

SonyTSW wrote on 12/7/2002, 3:00 PM

>> The only problem I have run into so far is a SF program halt when I try to search for anything in the On-Line Help window.

Here's the workaround for this Sound Forge problem:
darkhop wrote on 12/9/2002, 11:07 AM
As stated elsewhere, I want one thing: the ability to crossfade tracks. That's it. All the FX chaining and other abilities are secondary because I already have SF, so naturally I would've preferred something like this built into SF because I don't foresee any use for another set of the same effects. I only make discs of my own synth-based music, though, so I can't speak for the producers out there.
Geoff_Wood wrote on 12/9/2002, 9:13 PM
The FX on the tracks are what makes CDA5 a mastering app. It is a lot trickier doing that (properly, across multiple tracks) in SF. In CDA5 you can skip all over the entire CD with the mouse, comparing sonic qualities *across* all the tracks, and adjust each relative to one another. You can do that in SF, but it's a mess of open windows ....

CDM wrote on 12/11/2002, 11:57 AM
Darkhop -
Crossfade tracks? That's a staple in SF products. It's definitely in CD Architect. You can do this 2 ways:
1) enable Auto-Crossfade Events (it's in the toolbar and in the Options menu. Then, anytime you overlap events, they will auto-crosffade (you can select from 25 crossfade types)
2) expose the 2nd audio layer (options menu) and place a track underneath or on top of another track to create more customizeable crossfades.
Rednroll wrote on 12/11/2002, 5:07 PM
"The FX on the tracks are what makes CDA5 a mastering app."

Hmmmm...and I thought it was Sound Forge that was the mastering app.....and CDA was the "CD authoring/assembly" tool? Amazing how all the lines start to blur between these products.

Geoff, all the positives you mentioned about CDA are already features in Vegas, then why isn't Vegas the "Mastering app"? is for me, the only thing Vegas is lacking is the newly released bugs of CDA, and a print cue sheet, and CD transport simulator. Wow...the lines are really blurring now. Is CDA the mastering app? Is Sound Forge the Mastering app? Or is Vegas the Mastering App? You can ask 3 different people, and get 3 different answers. I do most of my mastering in Sound Forge, and then do the assembly in Vegas.
SHTUNOT wrote on 12/11/2002, 10:12 PM
How do you then market a mastering/cd burning app with "video" attached to it? You don't.

This is where sofo got it right in keeping a interface streamlined to doing "one" function ie:cd burning and not the whole shabang thrown in for no reason. It is this lack of focus that is hurting the vegas line of products IMHO!

Vegas Audio= Audio solutions...Vsti's,OPT,DX automation,buss tracks, 5.1,rewire,etc...
Vegas Video= Video solutions...Premier crusher...

How do you sell someone the audio features of Vegas Video 3...You can't,sorry.

If you can do something easily in VV that takes tooo much work to do in CDA5 then add to a wishlist your methods so that we could all benefit from it in the next revision of CDA6.

Please sofo keep the bulk of your effort in tweaking the audio side of Vegas so that I can look forward to using it over sonar in the near future. Leave the cd burning features to the app focused for it.

My .02cents.
Rednroll wrote on 12/12/2002, 10:06 AM
I've never used Vegas Video for Video purposes and started using "Vegas Pro", which was "audio" only and was the original program. So the whole point you're trying to make really doesn't hold any water. What you should be saying is to get the Video features out of Vegas, not get the CD burning features out of it. If you knew half of the history of Vegas as I do, then you might be able to make a valid point. Here's a history lesson for you, to help you understand.

Vegas Pro was developed as an audio only multi-track program. Vegas Video 2.0 and Vegas Audio 2.0 was the next release. The main upgrade was that video features, where added to both programs. "Vegas AUDIO" had 1 track of video editing ability, while "Vegas Video" had unlimited tracks.....but BOTH programs had the SAME audio features. Infact, they where exactly the same program, but if you entered a VEGAS AUDIO serial number, the VIDEO features where limited as I described, and if you entered a VEGAS VIDEO serial number, ALL the video features where active. Many users where then confused as to what the better program was for their needs, because Vegas VIDEO actually had more power than Vegas Audio. I'm an AUDIO user, and decided to purchase VEGAS VIDEO, because then I had the extra bells and whistles and didn't feel limited, although my primary use was AUDIO. Right after Vegas AUDIO/VIDEO was release, SF discontinued CD Architect 4.0. This made many users very upset, myself was one of the more animate users expressing this disatifaction. To make the users happy, they decided to incorporate the CDA features into Vegas. I was on the Pre-beta testing team, to help out with the development to make sure, us "CDA users" where happy with the new features. They got about 95% there, and I was told future updates would get the other 5% of the features that where missing. Also to elliminate the confusion between Vegas AUDIO/VIDEO name....they dropped the name "Vegas Audio", thus "Vegas Video 3.0" was released. I don't blame you for not knowing "Vegas Video" is an audio program and is not only a competitor for Adobe "Premiere". This is due to very bad marketing decisions on Sonic Foundry's part. So instead of getting my other 5% development in VEGAS VIDEO.....I got 100% development on a new CDA. That's fine for some users.....just give me my other 5% on "Vegas Video" and rename the program, so NEW USERS don't think VEGAS is JUST A VIDEO PROGRAM.

Geoff_Wood wrote on 12/12/2002, 4:30 PM
Red sed "Geoff, all the positives you mentioned about CDA are already features in Vegas, then why isn't Vegas the "Mastering app"? is for me, the only thing Vegas............"

I have VV3 . I just could never get the hang of the CD layout interface. Cluttered. I prefered to use CDA4.5, and now CDA5, as does just about everybody who answered your (?) poll.

The introduction of the effects chain, per track and overall, has enabled CDA5 to become a full CD mastering app, though SF marketing don't seem to have realised this. I can't think of anything else that a mastering app needs. Quick access to all track to compare the somnic qualities, without accidentally moving or changing things as I tended to do in Vegas.

Rednroll wrote on 12/12/2002, 5:48 PM
"I can't think of anything else that a mastering app needs."

Well it's been a few weeks now since the beta expired on my machine, but here's a few things I could think of, but feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

1. A way to Record audio? I use external processors like my TC Finalizer, to do most of my mastering like multi-band compression and EQ.

2. Ability to Remove DC offset. I receive material all the time from studios, who's equipment introduces a lot of DC offset, thus reducing the headroom and overall volume and adding hum to the track.

3. Normalization. This may already be in I said correct me if I'm wrong...but if it isn't, then this is a very obvious tool needed for mastering.

4. Ability to reverse audio. When mastering most everyone of my clients, has an unedited version and then also wants a version with the cuss words reversed to send to local radio stations.

5. The ability to record to more than 1 'cd burner at a time. I always burn 3 discs for my clients. 1 for them to listen too and evaluate so they don't get ANY scratches on the discs they're sending out, and 2 to send to the duplication house, incase something is wrong with 1, there is a backup for the duplication house.

6. A VU meter...'nuff said, I've beat this one to death.

I would hardly consider CDA to be a "full" mastering app. Some peoples mastering needs are more demanding than others, so if the shoe fits....wear it and be happy. I'm not, I want my 5% added to Vegas as I mentioned and it doesn't matter to me if everyone disagrees with "my opinion" or not. Everyone else is NOT doing MY mastering and obviously not working as effeciently and effectively as I consider possible.
PaulO wrote on 12/13/2002, 1:15 PM
>The ability to record to more than 1 CD burner at a time

Hey...let's get it working reliably with ONE burner first ;-)